Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37072163›Full record

ArticleRespiratory care2023

How to Conduct a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: A Guide for Clinicians.

Marco Zaccagnini, Jie Li

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Respiratory care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The Peer Review Process.Respiratory care · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Marco ZaccagniniSchool of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada; and Department of Respiratory Therapy, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Jie LiDepartment Cardiopulmonary Sciences, Division of Respiratory Care, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois. Jie_Li@rush.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence-based practice relies on using research evidence to guide clinical decision-making. However, staying current with all published research can be challenging. Many clinicians use review articles that apply predefined methods to locate, identify, and summarize all available evidence on a topic to guide clinical decision-making. This paper discusses the role of review articles, including narrative, scoping, and systematic reviews, to synthesize existing evidence and generate new knowledge. It provides a step-by-step guide to conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis, covering key steps such as formulating a research question, selecting studies, evaluating evidence quality, and reporting results. This paper is intended as a resource for clinicians looking to learn how to conduct systematic reviews and advance evidence-based practice in the field.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineMeta-Analysis as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansknowledge synthesismeta-analysisnarrative reviewreviewscoping reviewsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37072163
PMCPMC10468159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.